EWR Stats and Scenarios in Theory and Practice

[Lineker]

Precisely what Colly said. The point is going waayy over your head. This Cory Kastle is just the current example.

[Reflecto Is My Favorite Poster]

With talks of relationships coming up - I urge everyone to think about again, not what the idea of "Loyalty" means to you but more along the lines of what Skummy has stated - what Loyalty actually does in the game.

In my humble opinion I think that the concept of Loyalty in the EWR data should be very, very rarely used - at least compared to how it is used in this day and age. Have you ever tried to cut down a WWE game roster without doing the "morale/offer release" trick? It's a HUGE pain in the ass when you have SO many friendships/loyalties in the data. And you have to resort to an exploit that hurts your chances of picking those people up later, if you so desire. Think about it again, as Skummy has posted. If the WWE picked up Snuka for a while for lord knows what reason and then decided to let him go after they used him - why would The Rock threaten to leave? Just because they're related by marriage? That's absolutely ridiculous.

It's also insane when people suggest friendships or loyalties based off one or two trivial actions - heck, I remember back when I paid a lot of attention to the stat update threads - people were having relationships created because they were friends with another wrestler on MySpace or some crap like that. How much stuff like that is bloating the data at this point in time? Just because two people have a friendly relationship with each other - it has absolutely no bearing on whether or not they'd kick up a fuss or even feel bad enough to have their "morale" go down after they've been released.

This is about making the data conform to the systems that the game works by. Not by every single person's personal definition of what everything is.

Is Loyalty a 'stronger' link than Friendship? I can't remember the exact implications of either, but am I right in saying sacking a friend is a lower morale drop than a loyalty, which is lower than blood relative? Just knock a load down a tier based on Skummys logic.

Using an example Bill posted in stats updates before from earlier in the thread:

Bill said,

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hire a Blood Relative: +20 Morale

Fire a Blood Relative: -25 Morale

Hire a Dislike: -20 Morale

Fire a Dislike: No Change

Hire a Friendship: +10 Morale

Fire a Friendship: -25 Morale

Hire a Hate: -40 Morale

Fire a Hate: No Change

Hire a Love: +20 Morale

Fire a Love: -25 Morale

Hire a Loyalty: +10 Morale

Fire a Loyalty: -25 Morale

So, as an example: Brie Bella and Daniel Bryan have a "Love" relationship in the game. So, if you had Brie on your roster and hired Bryan, Brie's morale would go up by 20. If both were on the roster and you fired either, the one that you kept would have their morale drop by 25.

Firing a Loyalty or Love also has the chance that the person you don't fire will leave as well, especially if they are only under an open contract.

Hopefully, this helps some when suggesting to add relationships into the game.

Are two people really "friends" enough that they'd drop 25 points in morale if you fired their "friend"?

Is a trainer "loyal" enough to a student that they'd drop 25 points in morale and perhaps even leave the promotion, if you fired their trainee?"

Of the list, going further- I'm pretty sure that Blood Relative also carries the chance that the person you don't fire will leave as well. Having said that, though, the potential "Modest Proposal" that's either completely sensible or completely insane (I never know anymore with me):

From these stats, my question is: We know that if a person is "loyal" to someone, or if a person is "friends" with someone, there is no difference to what the wrestler will gain [10 points overness] or lose [25 points overness.]. The only difference is if someone's loyal to someone, they'll potentially leave the promotion over it, but if they're friends,they won't leave. However- can anyone think of two people loyal enough to each other that one would quit the company over the other one's leaving- and if not- is there even a reason that ANY Loyalty relationships are kept in the game, period? Just move any down to "Friendship" and go from there.

Edited November 19, 2013 by Reflecto Is My Favorite Poster

[Colly]

That was lazy of me. So loyalty and friendship do exactly the same thing, and my point is pointless...

[Gazz]

I think loyalty is more to do with boss/employee relationships.

[apsham]

That was lazy of me. So loyalty and friendship do exactly the same thing, and my point is pointless...

It also states that someone with Loyalty may leave.

[Hornswoggle4PM]

I think the real problem with the loyalty relationship is that it works the same for every promotion. It's perfectly reasonable to expect for example, Jeff Hardy to leave an indy fed if they fire Shannon Moore but if the same were to happen in TNA or WWE, you would expect him to stay with the promotion regardless.

Given that we obviously can't change the way how the game treats relationships, which way do we lean on this? Should everyone who is over enough to appear in a major promotion such as the WWE have their loyalty relationships downgraded to friendship?

[Nerf]

Kliq should probably be a Loyalty relationship.

[Colly]

That was lazy of me. So loyalty and friendship do exactly the same thing, and my point is pointless...

It also states that someone with Loyalty may leave.

Even more lazy. In which case change these dubious loyalty ones to friendships, they like the person but they aren't going to quit if they get fired.

[TheLastInLine]

Kliq should probably be a Loyalty relationship.

Maybe Hall, Nash and X-Pac should be loyal to eachother. Hunter and HBK probably too. But are Hunter and HBK really that close to the three aforementioned guys? Or is Justin Credible that close to any of the aforementioned guys? Hypothetically, do you really think HHH or HBK would leave WWE if they re-hired Pac or Hall for a Nostalgia Run and fired them? Because from reading this thread this is what a loyality relationship implies in this game.

[mkpunk]

Kliq should probably be a Loyalty relationship.

Maybe Hall, Nash and X-Pac should be loyal to eachother. Hunter and HBK probably too. But are Hunter and HBK really that close to the three aforementioned guys? Or is Justin Credible that close to any of the aforementioned guys? Hypothetically, do you really think HHH or HBK would leave WWE if they re-hired Pac or Hall for a Nostalgia Run and fired them? Because from reading this thread this is what a loyality relationship implies in this game.

If I remember the story correctly, Justin was originally brought into WWF after ECW folded by his relationship with HHH. Obviously I would say it's a friendship but I wouldn't say it is loyalty.

The same can be said about the Shane Douglas "hatred" for the Kliq. I think dislike is perfectly fine.

[TheLastInLine]

But that was more than 10 years ago. I'd set them all to friendship but leave the loyalty for Hall & Nash and HHH & HBK.

[Pizza]

This seems better suited for here rather than the update thread. Are there any guidelines in place for how over a top TNA guy should be compared to a top WWE guy? The post that sparked this suggested Bobby Roode should be more over than Alberto Del Rio and Bray Wyatt, and that just seems absurd to me.

[Mick]

And to me.

I suppose it would depend on the context you're lookin into. To the IWC, Roode may be more over. To Marky McMark up in the stands, he wouldn't.

[Gazz]

It depends how you interpret overness.

If it's as a known name, no one in TNA bar Angle, Sting and Hardy should be anywhere near anyone who features on WWE TV.

If it's as a crowd reaction within their company, then you could argue some could overlap. But then you've got the argument that if Bobby Roode showed up on the next Raw, 75% of the crowd wouldn't have a clue who he is.

[Pizza]

Roode's probably more over with the TNA crowd than Del Rio is with the WWE crowd. But if Del Rio were to show up on Impact, he'd get an enormous reaction, at least at first. If Roode showed up on Raw, he'd get some mild applause from a quarter of the crowd. At the same time, you can't have the top guys in a National company like TNA in the 70s, can you? And you need to have some room to space out the WWE roster, you can't have every guy who shows up on every show in the 90s. So I don't know how to best make it work in the game.

[Mick]

The way I've always done it, from my own tastes, is that anyone 80+ in a national company would be a top guy.

It's extremely difficult to work out, to be honest. I'd say that in 2001, Buff Bagwell was in the mid 80s, yet the crowd could have given a shit when he showed up on Raw.

I think the overall problem we have here is the fact that the game is eleven years old, and a lot has changed with wrestling. EWR simply wasn't designed with the kind of overall expansion the media has seen. Therefore, we have to stop thinking in 2013 terms and start thinking about how wrestling was a decade ago

[snakesonaplane]

This sort of thing is much easier to grade in TEW, as you have the letter grades as a guide and you can create a scale based off the WWE and go down accordingly. In TEW terms TNA is a regional promotion, edging cult maybe, as such their workers would all be treated as undercard WWE guys, i.e. undercard national guys.

In TEW I use this scale; some of the ratings have actually changed since this list was created, but the maximum level a TNA-only guy should be at is midcard WWE level. Ex-WWE guys in TNA like Angle and Hardy can and should be higher than any TNA-only guy. In EWR terms I would put Roode at a lower mid WWE guys level overness, as you need to think in terms of if the WWE signed him where would he be pushed? Probably lower-mid.

c- midcard in a national level, main for cult strong headliner for

small indies - the shield, regal, bobby rude, james storm

d+ midcard national - no indy stars, no one not on tv from major

company. ex big company cast-offs - tensai, sin cara, kali, daniels,

d undercard for national, midcard for cult. - evan bourne, justin

gabriel, sabin, magnus

d- national undercarders, cult lower mid. king of indies,
usos, curtis axel, kazarian hernandez

e+ e e- = talented indy guys, cast offs from wwe, headling indies,

upper range of regional feds.

3 man band, doug williams, gunner, joery ryan.

f+ f f-unknowns mostly, early carrer, never been in major company. Wes brisco!

[pokerfreak]

This is from the EWR FAQ

Global
Main Eventer: 91-100
Upper Midcarder: 81-90
Midcarder: 61-80
Lower Midcarder: 41-60
Opener: 21-40
Jobber: 0-20

National
Main Eventer: 81-100
Upper Midcarder: 71-80
Midcarder: 56-70
Lower Midcarder: 41-55
Opener: 21-40
Jobber: 0-20

Cult
Main Eventer: 66-100
Upper Midcarder: 51-65
Midcarder: 41-50
Lower Midcarder: 21-40
Opener: 11-20
Jobber: 0-10

Regional
Main Eventer: 56-70
Upper Midcarder: 46-55
Midcarder: 36-45
Lower Midcarder: 21-35
Opener: 11-20
Jobber: 0-10

Small
Main Eventer: 36-50
Upper Midcarder: 21-35
Midcarder: 11-20
Lower Midcarder: 6-10
Opener: 0-5
Jobber: N/A

Backyard
Main Eventer: 21-30
Upper Midcarder: 11-20
Midcarder: 6-10
Lower Midcarder: 0-5
Opener: N/A
Jobber: N/A

[snakesonaplane]

If we consider TNA a large regional promotion edging cult their main eventers like Roode should by that scale sit at a range 56-70 overness. I would scale down always, so based on that scale I would put Roode and guys like him in the lower-mid-to-mid scale of overness for a national promotion (WWE), i.e. 40-56 max. Scaling TNA correctly in EWR is really hard though, which is why I guess the workers and company popularity is usually much higher than it should be. Because treating TNA as a bigger promotion than it is prevents them from losing all their over guys straight away, which is obviously unrealistic. But there needs to be balance, as WWE should not be signing Bobby Roode and then pushing him to straight to mid-upper mid.

Obviously any attempt to scale overness also needs to keep in mind industry context, such as the TNA exclusive guys having lower overness than ex-WWE TNA guys, and where a worker would likely be pushed if they went from TNA to WWE.

Going by the EWR scale above I'd put WWE as a large national meaning the range for TNA guys should be anything from Jobber to Mid, or 20-80. Realistically no one outside of Angle/Hardy types is likely to be autopushed at mid-card by the WWE (rather low-mid at best), nor would they have the overness/face recognition of the WWE universe to justify current WWE midcarders overness levels if they were to turn up on 'Raw'.

In EWR, I also think it's useful to go for a balance for TNA guys based around scaling off of WWE worker overness (which is what I do in TEW to keep the world realistic). Such that TNA guys should nearly always be lower, capping at the level of a lower mid or mid guy in the WWE, as they are the most likely workers to get signed by WWE in real life and probably in-game (because of their overness), so they especially need to be balanced. In-game TNA workers should not usually be entering above lower mid unless they have previous recent exposure in WWE, or obvious history/overness, like your returning RVD for example.

I actually thinks its more useful to use hard caps for workers never in a major company with TV, in EWR terms, basically the backyard scale is the cap for all indy guys I would use. Meaning, only TNA guys in the current market should be exceeding the backyarder scale in US/Canada.

Basically the EWR scale above is far too generous to non-TV companies, I mean by that scale it suggests a main eventer for a small company like ROH has comparable exposure/populatiry/overness to a lower mid WWE guy. Maybe this makes sense in EWR somehow, but in TEW that would seriously break balance. Ditto for rating someone who is main eventing in a regional company like TNA at the max listed here (70), which would mean they would be up there pushing close to upper-mid in the WWE. No way Magnus, or James Storm, or any of the TNA originals would find that place in the WWE. Again this may work in EWR, but 'on the face of it' - it seems wrong?

Also these figures, and EWR itself was made at a time when the industry was very different (as others have said), so i'm not sure if this scaling is still relevant. Thoughts?

Edited December 16, 2013 by snakesonaplane

[pokerfreak]

Pretty much agree with all that. Although in EWR WWE is always Global in any recent current day mod and TNA is always National. TNA should likely be bumped down to cult since I couldn't see anyone outside of Sting, Angle or Hardy ever crossing over to WWE and being anything more than a mid carder at first. I can't speak for any mod maker which btw its a thankless job so I'd like to thank anyone who has made mods but it seems more like guys are rated more so on how over they are in that company versus how over they would be in the world. Not to extremes ie: like some random back yarder being rated 100 simply because he's the most over guy there but I do think people are very generous to non-WWE guys. I think WWE should be the bar and everyone gets compared to that. As in if so and so were to go to WWE what would his "overness" be. For most guys on TNA I don't think you could realistically say above the midcard and prolly more likley lower-mid.

On a complete side note, I've never looked to far in depth on the issue simply because in EWR overness for the human player sways so quickly. If you take any random pairing of guys that have a 80 or better in say speed, and you put them in a match they will have a great match and likely jump 10 overness points.